Marty_d

Interesting side thought,  if you could snap your fingers / rub a genie and make it impossible for any politician,  anywhere,  to lie, obfuscate, mislead or cloud the issue - would it be better or worse for the world?

Good (and more) moderation is the thing.

While I agree that you should be able to post anonymously (you can imagine the murder rate increasing dramatically if everyone had the real world names and addresses of people who posted something they violently disagreed with), I also think it's the responsibility of any platform to moderate properly.

The problem comes then that these are private for-profit corporations whose owners and boards may be, in some cases, (what's the medical term? - oh yeah)  "bat-shit crazy".  The other problem is that the corporations are often based overseas.  The recent court case by Australia's e-safety commissioner against one such corporation to remove the video footage of that priest being stabbed has proved how little power nation states have against them.

The other problem is VPN's.  This allows anyone to mask what country they're actually in, and they're getting more and more common (many anti-virus programs actively encourage users to use a VPN).  However, you really don't want to stop this feature because it's the only way people living in authoritarian countries can actually get information from the outside world.

26 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

 

Would the benefit be worth the loss of privacy?

Part of the issue is the plan to force ALL social media users to prove they are over 18 years of age (and who would hold the personal data that proves age,etc)

 

 

Verifying age would be a good thing, but obviously as you say, who holds that data?  You really wouldn't want that treasure trove of ID documents getting hacked.

It's a conundrum all right.  On the one hand it's obvious these corporations need more legislative oversight (including forcing them to pay tax in countries where they're making a profit), but if they find this too oppressive / profit limiting, they'll just move to a country with laxer laws.

I'd just like to point out there's no side mirrors - how does the driver tell when someone is trying to overtake him?? 🤔

Yes, the crash even changed the colour of their life raft!

Shallow and Inconsistent describe pretty much everything that comes out of Voldemort's mouth.  

I don't think Albo and his government have done too badly.  Are there things I didn't agree with?  Of course.  But on the whole I'd rate them a solid 7/10.

3 hours ago, spacesailor said:

" Canon-fodder "

People who pose for photos?

Jared.

I didn't know either Glod Coast or Gellong were playing... (sorry Jerry!)

The Rabbit with the bad 'abbit 

4 hours ago, spenaroo said:

So question....

 

with the original title.

is anyone actually still a supporter of the guy?

 

no judgment of opinion. just curious with all the bashing that goes on here

The original title was a joke,  if you look at the first post you'll see.

In reality the sort of idiots who support Clive Palmer might be closet Trump supporters. 

I agree in general with what you're saying.  If the stats show that the murder rate is going down, especially in the area in question (domestic & family violence), then that's a good thing and should be published as a caveat in news stories about D&FV.

As far as "are you happy to have it claimed to the World that you are a homicidal, controlling sex maniac? ", I don't think anyone thinks that the mere fact of your gender means that, just as the existence of female prostitutes doesn't make one assume that every woman will have sex for money.

Not sure why you emphasised heterosexual there either, as the recent double murder in Sydney proved, this is not a phenomenon unique to hetero males.

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

The proponent has been quoted as saying something of the style of "Some of my best friends are LGBTQ+ etc"

Ah, one of those sentences, usually followed by a "but" - where the statement following the comma completely reverses the first part of the sentence.

Some other examples are:

"I'm not a racist, but..."

"No offence, but..."

"With all due respect, ..."

"I've got nothing against <insert ethnic/cultural/sexual group here>, but..."

11 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

 

So, does this make sfm an official trumpet?

 

Arse trumpet perhaps, but he was that long before Trump was a politician.

3 minutes ago, old man emu said:

More like a political whore, otherwise known as a sTrumpet.

What, Donny's going to have his way with him then pay him to keep quiet about it?

Good, common sense prevails.

I know it's not a big deal in and of itself, but more a symptom of attempts to de-liberalise our democracy.

We REALLY don't want to go the way of the USA in this regard.

Not trying to be rude here Peter... but check out their butts.

2 hours ago, red750 said:

If an investor owns 3 rental properties, does he receive 4 x $300 subsidy (his ownn home plus rental properties)?  Who pays the power bills in rental properties? What about Air BnB's?

 

There is also a report that a number of landlords are putting up the rent by $300 pa., but claim that it's pure coincidence.

Landlords don't pay utilities. Usually. 

They've all got very good leg muscles. 

4

Not very hard, but it has poTENtial...

It almost jumps out and bites you.

I like that in this case, the publisher has put a free PDF copy of the book online for whoever wants to download it.  

If the intention behind the ban is to limit readership of the book, they've kicked an own goal.

It's pretty simple, really.  If you go to a library and see a book you don't want to read, don't read it.  

By the way, his use of the word "sexualised" is way out of context for this book.  All it does is present some facts which may be uncomfortable for conservative religious parents, but which in this country are legal.  Two men or two women can raise a child just as well as any other family.  Pretty sure the councillor wouldn't have a problem with a book about being raised by a mummy and a daddy, isn't that equally "sexualised"?

Don't know if anyone's been following this in the news, but a local council in NSW passed a motion to ban the library from keeping a copy of a kid's book.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/103836256

Interested what people think about this.

My opinion will come as no surprise,  if religious conservatives want to ban a book because it describes how some families have 2 mummies or 2 daddies, then I think it's only fair to remove another book that promotes incest, killing children, slavery and lots of other horrors - the bible. 

Seriously - that entire council should be sacked for anti democratic behaviour,  exceeding their remit and stupidity. 

Arguments in support of the council?

Haha, I got the right answer for the wrong reason. 

I thought it was the number of vertical lines multiplied by the number of horizontal ones.